By Voice Alone

There's a lot of buzz about whether or not Elliot Spitzer will resign, but I'm not sure I understand how he can avoid arrest. They've got him on a wiretap, don't they? Surely there's no "it's not a crime if you're a high-profile governor" exemption to the Mann Act. I like Elliot Spitzer, and his high-stakes brinksmanship with Joseph Bruno seems to be paying some dividends, but the law's the law, isn't it? Meanwhile, I can't say I know much about David Paterson but he seems solid enough -- there's no particular reason liberals need to defend Spitzer's hold on office.

UPDATE: Also why did Spitzer need a New York hooker to come down to DC? If he'd just thought to call Andray Blatche (or, perhaps, Duke Cunningham) for a recommendation, the whole thing could have been avoided.

Comments

What I don't get is this:

He is a Governor. He has a lot of power. You'd think women would be throwing themselves at him if he made it clear that he wanted to shack up with some ambitious hussy around Albany. Why get a prostitute? Why not hire lots of good looking interns and slam them two at a time in between speaking engagements?

He went about this all wrong. Personally if I was Governor it would be a license to never even have to buy a drink to get laid ever again. Spitzer is a schmuck.

Posted by JFD | March 11, 2008 1:00 AM

Basically, go the Bill Clinton route?

Posted by Monster | March 11, 2008 1:07 AM

*taps nose*

Posted by JFD | March 11, 2008 1:09 AM

I suspect there is an element of MAD involved here. Mutual Assured Destruction.

How many Senators and Members of Congress from both parties might be indicted if EVERY violation of the Mann Act (or local DC prostitution laws) was actually prosecuted?

Has David Vitter been indicted?

Posted by Bill White | March 11, 2008 1:14 AM

Matt,

You deserve credit here for respecting the rule of law. Megan had a similar post, in response to the suggestion that Spitzer might have delayed a resignation announcement as part of a plea negotiation.

JFD,

You must not have watched Brotherhood on Showtime. Those hussies can be a headache too, though it beats breaking federal laws, I guess.

Posted by Fred | March 11, 2008 1:23 AM

Reading this, I think they may have him on wire fraud and a basket of financial crimes as well.

Posted by southpaw | March 11, 2008 1:27 AM

JFD said,
Why get a prostitute?

Because they, unlike wiretaps, tend to keep their mouths shut.

Hubris, hubris, hubris.

I voted for the guy three times and he must go now. Until the law is changed (and change it they should) he has broken it. Let the next governor attempt to change it. Spitzer is not exactly the best person to make that case an more.

Posted by swarty | March 11, 2008 1:30 AM

Can anyone explain why he did not just pay cash?

Posted by thesheriffisa | March 11, 2008 1:50 AM

When a woman is charging $5500 an hour for her 'services' i think it is safe to say she knows tricks that the run of the mill DC prostitute doesn't.

The 105 makes her petite, especially on a 5 foot 5 inch frame.

Posted by brian | March 11, 2008 1:54 AM

The trial would actually be a pain; they have Spitzer on the wire saying stuff about money and arranging to meet someone. They have the defendant on the tape saying something about sex. But nothing conclusive.

Heck, the DoJ might not want it to go to trial at all, for fear of who else Emperor VIP has in their little black book.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | March 11, 2008 2:03 AM

Adding ... that's why they're going to indict him on the structuring charge; it's much more open-and-shut.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | March 11, 2008 2:05 AM

Can anyone explain why he did not just pay cash?

From what I've read so far, he did pay cash. Spitzer's problem seems to be that he had to pay so much cash that he was going to run up against the $10,000 federal reporting requirement. To avoid the federal paper trail, he had to create a financial structure (shell companies, doing-business-as accounts) to break up/conceal/rationalize the flow of funds out of his accounts and into cash. It appears he didn't do a good enough job, and so he got listed in his bank's regular reporting to the feds.

Posted by southpaw | March 11, 2008 2:13 AM

Southpaw,

My sense from reading the NYT article is that Spitzer didn't set up the shell companies, etc., but that this structure had been set up by the escort service. Spitzer could have gone here instead and found himself an "independent" (i.e., freelance) escort who was so politically unaware that she wouldn't even recognize him. It would have cost him 1/20th of what he paid the fancy escort service, and with the amount of money being so low, he could have paid in cash and avoided wire charges or other suspicious transactions.

Posted by Fred | March 11, 2008 2:25 AM

I hate to say it, but a real irony is that whenever people spell out my name, they never get it right (they add an extra "T" or take away an "L") and you have misspelt Eliot Spitzer's name which is the correct spelling of my name.

In all seriousness though, I'm disappointed in Spitzer, but I don't believe this *should* be enough to destroy his political career. It should destroy his marriage (and he'd deserve it), but it's not like this is the first time a politician has been involved with a hooker (*cough* Vitter *cough*)

Posted by Elliot | March 11, 2008 2:37 AM

"I can't say I know much about David Paterson but he seems solid enough..."

Here's some info for you about David Paterson: He's black, he's legally blind, and he is involved in a discrimination lawsuit filed by a white photographer who claims that Paterson (when he was in the state senate) had him fired because of his race. Also, Paterson must not have done well on his LSAT, since he went from Columbia undergrad to Hofstra Law School.

Posted by Fred | March 11, 2008 2:43 AM

a white photographer who claims that Paterson (when he was in the state senate) had him fired because of his race.

You'd think a blind man would be inoculated from charges of racism. Brings a certain Dave Chappelle skit to mind . . .

As to the money thing, maybe we don't know enough yet . . . but the complaint seems to indicate that Spitzer delivered at least some of the payment (including some extra for his account) to "Kristin" herself. I imagine that means he handed her cash or cash equivalents. In other words, I'd guess Spitzer was handling the placement and layering stages of his own money laundering--sprinkling cash around to some shell entities, moving it around, and then pulling it out as cash to hand over to the prostitute. But I could be wrong.

Posted by southpaw | March 11, 2008 3:10 AM

This is GW Bush warrantless wiretapping being used to take down a promient, rising-star political opponent. Period.

Posted by Daddy Love | March 11, 2008 3:45 AM

While I don't think that prostitution between consenting adults is a crime, Client 9 did when he was AG.
If they got him cold, I think he needs to do time if he made others do time. Did he have mercy on the prostitutes he prosecuted? How much time did they end up doing?

Posted by Client 8 | March 11, 2008 4:08 AM

Seriously, the Mann Act? Some Jim Crow era crap legislation written to rid us of the scourge of White Slavery? I think the last time someone tried to bust someone for this was the 1977 landmark case Smokey v Bandit.

Posted by Matt B | March 11, 2008 7:46 AM

there's no particular reason liberals need to defend Spitzer's hold on office.

Are there any who are? I don't think I've read one prominent liberal voice that thinks he should stay on.

This is either the great strength of liberals (integrity, commitment to law) or their greatest weakness (throwing their own under the bus.) Repubs have it much easier. Doesn't matter what happened or who did it, circle the wagons and start throwing feces and beg for forgiveness which is always granted. Funny how that works.

Posted by javaphil | March 11, 2008 7:52 AM

"Also why did Spitzer need a New York hooker to come down to DC?"

You call yourself a New Yorker? Everyone knows that you can't get a decent whore, or a decent bagel, in DC. Eliot was just showing Gotham class by importing his snatch from the Big Apple. I'd say he just clinched his re-election, even if he will have to do it the old-fashioned way, running while in the slam.

Posted by Alan Vanneman | March 11, 2008 8:14 AM

A person with presidential aspirations should know better then to get involved with prostitutes, but Spitzer thought he was getting involved with the prostitutes presidential aspirants use - the ones who keep their mouths shut. Still he never should have gotten his hands dirty. You're in New York, just give A-Rod a call.

Posted by Tim | March 11, 2008 8:15 AM

Wait. Wait. You want to slam the guy on hypocrisy, be my guest. But the guy is a john who (apparently) met an expensive hooker in DC. Mann Act? Structuring? On what? You want to send a guy to prison for 30 years for meeting a trick in DC? Get a friggin' grip!

And how is it illegal, or even reportable, to *withdraw* 3,000 to 5,000 cash? Doesn't "possible bribery" involve *depositing* money and not withdrawing money, in an amount that doesn't even come close to being reportable. You want the NSA rummaging through your phone and text messages for months every time you withdraw $3,000 from your bank account? E.g., you buy a cheap little car for 3k cash, and that triggers an FBI and IRS investigation with federal wiretap warrents, the US Attorney looking into it, the whole nine yards?

Like I said, sure, get on the high horse about the hypocrisy but jaysus, get a friggin' grip!

Posted by James | March 11, 2008 8:40 AM

What I heard on one of the cable channels is that the Mann Act is still used against procurers, but not usually against johns. Going after Spitzer might be selective prosecution.

Posted by David Tomlin | March 11, 2008 8:42 AM

Exactly like the 'war on drugs,' this prohibition against prostitution is an outdated, ridiculous condition espoused by those who would seek to legislate morality. We continue, as a nation, to slide away from progress.

Look at all of the other first-world nations who maintain some level of legality for both prostitution and for drugs--instead of blanket prohibition (with an exception for brothels in Nevada for the former)--and what you don't see is the moral decay and rampant crime that the naysayers would have you believe would necessarily result. Surely, there are issues of sex slaves and crime with both, but there are copious examples of regulation elsewhere that render outright illegality counterproductive.

Posted by terraformer | March 11, 2008 9:26 AM

"What I don't get is this:

He is a Governor. He has a lot of power. You'd think women would be throwing themselves at him if he made it clear that he wanted to shack up with some ambitious hussy around Albany. Why get a prostitute? Why not hire lots of good looking interns and slam them two at a time in between speaking engagements?"

Because interns sometimes like to talk about how they had sex with the Governor. And sometimes save blue dresses with genetic material on them.
Or sometimes they're trying to get knocked up so they can get a paycheck to raise your kid - though that's more of an issue for a guy in the NBA rather than the Governor's office.

Free love can be expensive.

Hire a prostitute and you don't, in theory, have to worry about these sorts of things.

Posted by Answer Guy | March 11, 2008 9:31 AM

Why all the focus on the prostitute in this whole thing (other than the Mann Act making it a Federal offense)? After all, if they have him on money laundering and dealing with organized crime, that gets away from the whole question of whether prostitution ought to be legal or not. And it definitely makes an ex-prosecutor of organizaed crime cases a candidate for jail time.

Posted by aka | March 11, 2008 9:32 AM

aka,

Sex scandals sell newspapers, and boring old money laundering doesn't - even if, particularly if it involves organized crime, it would a far worse [morally speaking] indictment of Spitzer than the apparent fact that he hired a hooker.

Posted by Answer Guy | March 11, 2008 9:38 AM

I'm actually started at how few people are arguing that this was a politically-motivated investigation which possibly misused wiretap and other surveillance powers. The origin was with bank transactions which do not seem to have actually been suspicious. Jane Hamsher is talking about this at Firedoglake.

Spitzer has a lot of very high-powered enemies on Wall Street and in the Republican Party. It also seems that a lot of people just dislike him personally and take the corruption of New York politics as given. These are not good reasons to ignore the troubling aspects of the case.

There are plenty of cases in NYC and nearby areas of political or other misuse of the police powers, prosecution powers, and the courts. The names Giuliani and Silverman come to mind, but there are many others. And of course, Rove's prosecution of Siegelman in Alabama also comes to mind, since this is a federal case.

Posted by John Emerson | March 11, 2008 9:47 AM

This is either the great strength of liberals (integrity, commitment to law) or their greatest weakness (throwing their own under the bus.)

This is parody right?

Posted by right | March 11, 2008 9:54 AM

The worse thing against Spitzer in this whole affair is his insistance on not using a condom when having sex with the prostitutes -- something which irritated the pros themselves.

What kind of guy would expose his wife to the threat of AIDS --without her knowledge, of course??

His wife should file for divorce. And strip him to the bone.

Posted by Don Williams | March 11, 2008 9:56 AM

Fred: "Paterson must not have done well on his LSAT, since he went from Columbia undergrad to Hofstra Law School."

That's right, must, must, must. No other explanation: he must must must musta done badly.
Poor blind nigger: musta done badly.

You know it all Fred, but God you're a douchebag.

Posted by Mark | March 11, 2008 10:29 AM

I pegged Spitzer for the sort of guy who, if he were to stray, would keep an upper-class mistress who knew how to be discreet.

But prostitutes? Arranged through an agency called "EmperorVIP"? That just strikes me as so... nuveau-riche.

Posted by Tyro | March 11, 2008 10:30 AM

Mark, while the most likely scenario is that he went to Hofstra because he was able to get a free ride, and thus avoid law school debt, there is a phenomenon of the person (generally from a family wealthier than Patterson's, though) who gets an Ivy League degree from undergrad and then goes to a lower-tier law school because the grades/LSATs/motivation aren't there to maintain the student's academic pedigree after undegrad.

Posted by Tyro | March 11, 2008 10:39 AM

Tyro, you don't understand: he MUST have done badly on the LSAT.

Posted by Mark | March 11, 2008 10:42 AM

Hire a prostitute and you don't, in theory, have to worry about these sorts of things.

Right... There were probably a lot of clients who, while not necessarily prominent politicians, still valued discretion, and probably expected it at those prices. Sure, when the service gets busted your name could come up (and if that does happen, hiring prostitutes is probably viewed more negatively by the public than just sleeping around, in addition to being illegal), but I think your chances are probably better with a professional service than with a gossipy 20-something intern. But this service wouldn't have been busted if it weren't for Spitzer's financial transactions drawing the attention of the Feds (in Vitter's case, his name came out after the prostitutes were busted, but only because he was dumb enough to use his office phone to call them, IIRC). It turns out the service was taking on the bigger risk by having a governor as a client than the governor was by becoming a client. It would be a shame if high end escort services had to stop catering to politicians for fear of being caught up in politically motivated investigations.

Posted by ibid | March 11, 2008 10:50 AM

"Tyro, you don't understand: he MUST have done badly on the LSAT."

To go from an undergrad education at Ivy League university with its own top-tier law school to a third-tier school like Hofstra, bombing the LSATs is the most logical explanation. Although there is normally no shortage of scholarship funds for qualified African Americans at even the best schools, Tyro's explanation might be plausible had Paterson gone to a slightly less prestigious law school than Columbia's. But a free ride at third-tier law school is awful deal for someone who can get into a top-tier law school. The difference in job prospects and earning potential dwarfs the cost of the top-tier tuition, even if you get no scholarships or financial aid.

Posted by Fred | March 11, 2008 11:02 AM

Ibid: "It would be a shame if high end escort services had to stop catering to politicians for fear of being caught up in politically motivated investigations."

Hereby I renounce any future designs for a political carrier, be it township supervisor or whatever.

Perhaps Spitzer should arrange his meeting to happen in Atlantic City and loose some money on the tables there, so he could attribute his cash needs to gambling. And he could pay using poker chips rather than cash. It is easier if you do not need a spotless reputation.

Posted by piotr | March 11, 2008 11:17 AM

"To go from an undergrad education at Ivy League university with its own top-tier law school to a third-tier school like Hofstra, bombing the LSATs is the most logical explanation."

Fred, what's going on? We've gone from "must" to "most logical." From the absolute to the conditional! Happily Fred's salvaged the situation and imposed a few more absolutes:

1) Paterson absolutely intended to go to "a top-tier" law school.

2) To fail to get into a top-tier law school one must absolutely "bomb" the LSATs.

3) Hofstra is absolutely a "third-tier law school"

4) Tyro's scenario is plausible only if Paterson had entered, not Hofstra, but an absolutely "slightly less prestigious law school than Columbia's".

5) Not somewhat less, or much less, but absolutely "slightly less"

6) The difference in job prospects (like an entry into local poltics) and earning potential absolutely dwarfs the cost of the top-tier tuition.

7) Fred knows everything but is absolutely a douchebag.

Interestingly, all of this absolution is merely obsfucation of the true universal truth: which is that every successful black person is an affirmative action mediocrity.

Posted by Mark | March 11, 2008 11:29 AM

Also why did Spitzer need a New York hooker

Much like the bagels, New York hookers are the best. Also much like the bagels, DC hookers are a bit crusty and way too salty.

Posted by jim | March 11, 2008 12:12 PM

Mark,

Instead of tossing around puerile taunts such as "douchebag" why not let this be a teachable moment for you? For starters, you could find out something about the job prospects for graduates of non-elite law schools in general. For example, this WSJ article highlights the plight of some graduates of second-tier law schools. Then you could click here and see that the characterization of Hofstra's law school as "third-tier" wasn't pulled out of my ass, but from U.S. News's ranking.

Posted by Fred | March 11, 2008 1:05 PM

Wow Fred that's interestingly...anachronistic. We're talking about Paterson here right?

Also, I didn't point this out before, but when you said "most logical" you meant "most likely." The distinction between logic and probability is a crucial one. I'd expect you to know that, but you know, let this be a teaching moment.

douchebag.

Posted by Mark | March 11, 2008 7:37 PM